the Pitt 31: Young, Restless, Relational

I intended to move into the underlying undercurrents of missional-monastic and contemplative-charismatic as we pick up our journey and musings post-Easter, but before we go there, I want to follow a rabbit down the hole for a bit, only because it has been a quite lively topic in some of the circles I frequent, and...well, I think it's worth our while to journey down this trail.  Of course, you'll probably have to read the next 4 Pitt posts to see why I think it's worth it, but you only have to read the last quote of this one to see why it's significant for us (of course, that doesn't mean I want you to skip the next three, OK?)

In an article a while back, Collin Hansen coined a phrase that has come up in a lot of conversations I have been in lately: Young, Restless, Reformed.    Hansen points out a recent surge and movement that has been called Neo-Reformed,

"Already, this latest surge of Reformed theology has divided Southern Baptist churches and raised questions about the future of missions. Its exuberant young advocates reject generic evangelicalism and tout the benefits of in-depth biblical doctrine. They have once again brought the perennial debate about God's sovereignty and humans' free will to the forefront.  The evidence for the resurgence is partly institutional and partly anecdotal. But it's something that a variety of church leaders observe. While the Emergent "conversation" gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon. It certainly has a much stronger institutional base."

Since first taking notice of this burgeoning group, I have a few observations concerning this restless, neo-Reformed crowd:  they're passionate!  They have passion, but a passion for...what exactly?  

• For criticizing others (see the whole overblown reactions to Rob Bell and his 2011 book Love Wins) 
• For systematic theology and arguing which theory of the Atonement is best (and of course these neo-reformed all ready know the correct answer, riiiight?) 
• For being heresy hunters and holding to 16th Century interpretations of scripture, while deriding vigorously all others as heretical, even if those interpretations are within the "generous" and historical orthodoxy of the Church

To me, this neo-Reformed phenomenon seems like a fall-back to old, hardened ideologies of another age, and thus once again grasping toward the certitudes of Modernity all while in the transitional throes of PostModernity.  Now, I was trained as an historian, and I certainly have a keen appreciation of the heritage of past ages and persons on whose shoulders we stand on, and, I suppose, in tough times of transition people do want to reach out for something "solid", right?  So I can't say I blame them. 

But, here's the thing: my hope and dream for cultivating a faith community in urban Pittsburgh is that we dare to risk more.  That while we plumb the depths of our faith and heritage and appreciate them in the present, we don't run back to them for safety...to avoid risking being the people God wants us to be in the here-and-now of the now-and-not-yet.

 

While the Neo-Reformed crowd seem to hold to great "doctrine" (I'll have a bit more to say about doctrine in the next few posts...) espoused by brilliant guys like John Calvin, my hope is that we trust God enough to learn to hold on to Him rather than ideologies or liturgies of certitude. 

And I keep coming back to something Walter Brueggemann said, and I think it's going to be really significant for us:

"We all have a hunger for certitude, and the problem is that the Gospel is not about certitude, it's about fidelity...fidelity is a relational category and certitude is a flat, mechanical category.  So we have to acknowledge our thirst for certitude and then recognize that if you had all the certitudes in the world it would not make the quality of your life any better because what we must have is fidelity."

[to be continued...]